webchat_get_message_count

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it gets a count, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, or response format. The tool may have side effects or constraints not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and the key parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, behavior when both parameters are provided, or error handling. The tool's context is not fully covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description adds meaning by stating that account_id and group_id are mutually exclusive, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what these IDs represent or provide any further semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the total number of messages for a person or group. It specifies the verb '获取' and resource '消息总数'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like webchat_get_messages or webchat_get_unread_count, which could cause ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a usage guideline that account_id and group_id are mutually exclusive ('二选一'). But it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_message_count vs get_messages.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.